Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DSI Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Garford Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 132 Citation: DSI Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd v Garford Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 132
Parties: DSI AUSTRALIA (HOLDINGS) PTY LTD (ACN 115 848 265) and DYWIDAG SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL PTY LIMITED (ACN 093 424 349) v GARFORD PTY LTD (ACN 009 119 180)
File number: NSD 767 of 2010
Judge: YATES J
Date of judgment: 28 February 2013
Catchwords: PATENTS – unjustifiable threats to sue for infringement of patent PATENTS – patent for an apparatus and method for manufacturing multi-strand rock bolts having spaced-apart bulbs – construction – distinction between the invention as claimed and the preferred embodiment – relevance of the "pith and marrow" doctrine – whether patent should be read as part of a complete or automatic machine – whether method claims require apparatus to undertake each step PATENTS – infringement – whether the alleged infringing apparatus and method possess the essential integers of the claims in suit – whether supply reel essential to the invention as claimed – whether alleged infringing apparatus possesses "feed means" – whether "sensing when the cable has reached a certain position" requires detecting some feature in the cable or can be constituted by monitoring displacement of the cable – whether "stopping movement of the cable" requires complete cessation of movement in the cable PATENTS – validity – requirement of novelty – whether claims not novel when compared with the prior art base – "paper anticipation" – whether patents existing prior to the priority date disclose the invention as claimed – notional claims PATENTS – validity – requirement of inventive step – whether combination would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art before the priority date in light of the common general knowledge either separately or together with relevant publication – whether secondary indicia show that the invention is not obvious – relevance of commercial success, "unfelt" want and allegations of copying PATENTS – validity – secret use – whether the patentee effectively reaped a commercial benefit before the priority date – whether the apparatus and method used earlier by the patentee have the features of the invention as claimed – whether use of the apparatus claimed in the patent before the priority date was directed to reasonable trial only – whether eventual sale of the fruits of the trial renders the use other than for reasonable trial PATENTS – validity – requirement that invention be a manner of manufacture – whether the inclusion of an earlier patent as prior art in the specification constitutes an admission that there is no new manner of manufacture PATENTS – validity – requirement of sufficiency of description and best method – whether the person skilled in the art would understand activation of a brake in the preferred embodiment as arresting all movement of the cable PATENTS – validity – requirement of utility – whether claims lack an essential integer required to make the invention work or point to an embodiment that would be inutile
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate